Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
oldrepublicwizard

Cedardiff MCP Server

by oldrepublicwizard
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

cedardiff MCP サーバー

CEDARScript 文法ルールを使用してファイルを編集する

これは、コード操作のためのSQL風言語であるCEDARScriptを実装した、TypeScriptベースのMCPサーバーです。以下の機能を提供します。

  • コード操作コマンドの包括的な文法

  • CEDARScript操作を実行するためのツール

  • 複雑なパターンマッチングと変換のサポート

特徴

文法

  • コード操作用の SQL のような構文 (DDL、DML)

  • ファイル、関数、クラス、メソッドのターゲット設定のサポート

  • 正規表現、接頭辞/接尾辞、インデントルールによるパターンマッチング

  • ブロックレベルのコード操作機能

ツール

  • edit_file - CEDARScriptコマンドを実行する

    • スクリプトと作業ディレクトリをパラメータとして受け取ります

    • ファイルの作成、削除、移動、更新をサポート

    • パターンベースのコード変換

実施状況

現在のテストで明らかになったこと:

  • コマンド解析は正しく動作します

  • 文法は複雑な演算をサポートする

  • ファイル書き込みメカニズムの改善が必要

  • 成功メッセージが返されましたが、変更は保存されませんでした

Related MCP server: ast-editor

発達

依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

サーバーを構築します。

npm run build

自動リビルドを使用した開発の場合:

npm run watch

インストール

Claude Desktop で使用するには、サーバー設定を追加します。

MacOS の場合: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windows の場合: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cedardiff": {
      "command": "/path/to/cedardiff/build/index.js"
    }
  }
}

デバッグ

MCPサーバーはstdio経由で通信するため、デバッグが困難になる場合があります。パッケージスクリプトとして提供されているMCP Inspectorの使用をお勧めします。

npm run inspector

インスペクターは、ブラウザでデバッグ ツールにアクセスするための URL を提供します。

ESモジュールの移行

プロジェクトはESモジュールを使用するように移行されました。主な変更点は次のとおりです。

  • package.jsonに"type": "module"を追加しました

  • "module": "ESNext"を使用するようにtsconfig.json更新しました

  • インポート/エクスポート文をESモジュール構文に変換しました

  • ESモジュールと互換性があるように型定義を更新しました

互換性に関する注意事項

  • Node.jsバージョン12以上を使用していることを確認してください

  • モジュールのインポートにはrequire()の代わりにimportを使用する

  • ローカルファイルをインポートするときに.js拡張子を使用する

Available Tools

1 tool
edit_fileC

Edit a file using CEDARScript syntax

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptYesCEDARScript commands to execute
workingDirYesWorking directory for resolving file paths

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Edit a file' which implies mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors like permissions required, whether edits are reversible, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, or practical usage context, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('script' and 'workingDir'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of CEDARScript commands or working directory conventions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Edit a file') and specifies the method ('using CEDARScript syntax'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, without sibling tools for comparison, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other file editing methods or alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, offering only the basic functionality without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observededit_file
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'edit_file' has a clearly distinct purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in this set.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'edit_file' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and there are no other tools to cause inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or narrow scope. For a server named 'Cedardiff MCP Server' which implies CEDAR-related operations, one tool feels insufficient to cover typical needs like validation, querying, or other file operations.

Completeness1/5

The server is severely incomplete for its apparent domain of CEDAR operations. With only an 'edit_file' tool, there are obvious gaps such as creating, reading, validating, or deleting files, and no coverage of other CEDAR-related tasks like policy management or analysis.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • ast-editor

    kambleakash0
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    AST-targeted code editing MCP server with 28 surgical tools for structural edits across 11 languages. Built on tree-sitter, replaces brittle search/replace with byte-correct edits keyed by symbol names.
    28
    MIT

  • knocoph

    jagonzalr
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Transforms TypeScript and JavaScript codebases into a persistent code knowledge graph in SQLite, enabling structural codebase navigation via deterministic graph queries without reading source files.
    11
    MIT

  • uni-kb

    admin-init
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables parsing, indexing, and querying source code as structured knowledge, providing code exploration, spec generation, and migration tools via 20 MCP tools.
    MIT

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/oldrepublicwizard/cedarscript-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server